Timeline for On what basis do presidential aircraft flying over enjoy immunity and inviolability?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 24, 2021 at 0:40 | comment | added | phoog | "They only need to communicate with the receiving state": maybe, but diplomats can receive diplomatic immunity in transit states if their country communicates with those states as well (article 40 off he convention, though it does not cover heads of state). Also, VC-25A is the model number, not the ID: there are two Air Force Ones, and their tail numbers are 28000 and 29000. | |
| Jun 23, 2021 at 5:41 | comment | added | Ted Wrigley | @JJJ: I just think that neither heads of state nor their aides and advisers are likely to put the HoS over (potentially) lawless, oppositional, or hostile territory without cause. I can't see (say) Putin opting for that Santa Barbara Bed and Breakfast vacation, if you follow me... | |
| Jun 23, 2021 at 5:29 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | @TedWrigley I guess it depends on the country. If a country is only recognized by a few other countries then there's no diplomatic recognition (and as such you could argue there are no formal diplomatic relations) yet the leader of such a country may still want to travel to allies. The Qatar diplomatic crisis could be an example. But yeah, it's probably getting so far into hypotheticals that how it works in practice becomes more relevant than how it works on paper. | |
| Jun 23, 2021 at 5:25 | comment | added | Ted Wrigley | @JJJ: By the way, a treaty implies a level of diplomatic relations, because treaties are hammered out through diplomatic channels. Just sayin... | |
| Jun 23, 2021 at 5:23 | comment | added | Ted Wrigley | @JJJ: I sincerely doubt that a head of state would fly over (or drive through, or so much as step into) a state with which there were no diplomatic relations. There's no practical reason to do so that would outweigh the list of problems that act might generate. It would almost certainly be interpreted as espionage and a violation of the offended state's sovereignty, if not an outright aggression. Heads of state are not like tourists; they don't get to go where they like without consequence. | |
| Jun 22, 2021 at 21:58 | comment | added | William Walker III | Yeah, there's a number of ways that aircraft identify themselves - including the owner - without even keying the radio. E.G. Air Force One's ID is VC-25A, and so on. You won't mistake the plane for anything else - and trying to hide a military vehicle under a diplomatic flag is its own violation of international laws about warfare. | |
| Jun 22, 2021 at 20:50 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | Thanks, it makes more sense if you look at it from the perspective of a diplomatic mission to a receiving state somewhere else. So then the transport would be protected even if there are no diplomatic relations with the country below (assuming they are both party to the treaty)? Still, you would have to communicate that the head of state is on-board, because there are also state aircraft that aren't covered by immunity (e.g. military planes without diplomats). | |
| Jun 22, 2021 at 20:45 | vote | accept | JJJ♦ | ||
| Jun 22, 2021 at 20:42 | comment | added | William Walker III | It's important to note, state aircraft have to broadcast the fact that they are such on their transponder codes. | |
| Jun 22, 2021 at 20:42 | comment | added | William Walker III | They only need to communicate with the receiving state. Diplomats fly over, drive through, and ride trains through other countries going to/from their host and sending nations all the time. I don't see anything that requires them to communicate with non-receiving states. But under this context, intercepting said head of state is an in-spirit violation of this treaty, even if not in-letter. I can't find any part of this that says you can't intercept a diplomatic mission between two other states, but it'd obviously be a hostile act. | |
| Jun 22, 2021 at 20:38 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | Are you sure a head of state is considered part of the diplomatic mission even if they're just flying over? For example, then (per article 10) they would have to communicate their arrival and departure to all the ministries of foreign affairs of all the countries they fly over. In a way it makes sense that such flights would be considered diplomatic missions, but it doesn't really seem to fit with the convention text (which is aimed at missions from one state to another). | |
| Jun 22, 2021 at 20:18 | history | answered | William Walker III | CC BY-SA 4.0 |